The Obama administration has said that it will not defend the law, known as DOMA, and lower courts have said it is unconstitutional to deny federal benefits to same-sex couples who are legally married in the states where they live while offering the same benefits to opposite-sex married couples. At the same time, however, the administration has said it will continue to enforce the law until the Supreme Court rules.

During Wednesday’s oral arguments, Justice Antonin Scalia remarked on that contradiction, saying it was a “new world” when the attorney general could decide a law is unconstitutional but still enforce it. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, considered a potential swing vote in the case, called that a “questionable practice.”

Technical questions dominated the first part of Wednesday’s oral arguments, with a court-appointed attorney arguing that a group of Republican leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives has no standing to defend DOMA in court . . .

____ Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, thought likely to be the deciding vote as the court held its second day of hearings on same-sex marriage, told the advocate defending the law that it did not really promote “uniformity” in federal law.

Kennedy acknowledged that there were 1,100 references to marriage in the federal code, and that the definition of who is married is “intertwined with daily life.” He questioned whether the federal government may impose its own view of marriage, which has “always thought to be” the domain of the state.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that if those couples don’t receive federal benefits such as tax advantages, Social Security benefits and other recognition, “what kind of marriage is it?’

She said it created two classes: real marriage and “skim-milk marriage.”

16. It makes sense that an AG can't just "decide" that a law is unconstitutional

Laws aren't meant to be "decided" upon. We had 8 years of a "decider" and I'm glad that is over. Yes, it may be unconstitutional but the constitution is open to some VERY different interpretations...just ask scalia.

12. 14th Amendment. Section 1. 'nuff said.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

13. DOMA needs to be trampled flat, face first in the mud...

The whole concept is abhorrent. Why should fundy wingnuts be allowed to force the obedience to their religious beliefs onto the lives and bodies of others?

The answer is obvious: there is NO WAY they should be allowed to coerce others to goose step to their beliefs.

As always, the whole issue is about the right of the wingnuts to coerce the rest of us into living our lives in accordance with the tenants of their religion, irregardless of what we might believe. It is completely disgusting, and as anti-American as it is possible to get, at least as far as the ideals set out in the Constitution are concerned. (And, I am all too aware of our history, where the dominant religious groups in this country have and continue to attempt to dictate to everyone else.).

The efforts of the wingnuts to dictate to the rest of us deserve to go down to permanent defeat.

19. IMHO the Justices are way off line on this.

"Justice Alito looked for “data” on this “institution which is newer than cell phones.” Same-sex marriage, he said, might turn out to a “good thing”, or “not”, as Proposition 8 supporters “apparently believe.” Justice Scalia said that there is no “scientific answer” to the decisive “harm” question at this time.” Justice Sotomayor asked the Solicitor General: why not “let[] the States experiment” for a few more years, to let society “figure out its direction.”" (from http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/03/commentary-over-the-cliff/#more-161942)

They are saying that same sex marriage is a new thing. The only thing new is that it recently has become legal in some states. But it's been going on for decades. What data is needed? That the world wont end as we know it? Same sex couples have been doing everything that married couples do for decades except enjoy the same benefits. Do the Justices think that if we give same sex couples the same benefits we give opposite sex married couples, that that some how could give a negative outcome? I am totally lost.

Why does the government currently give "married" couples special benefits? Is the intent to encourage marriage? If so, why? If it's because married couples provide stability to society, then the genders shouldnt matter.

Seems to me that there are two issues. One does allowing same sex marriages violate the Constitution? Two, does the Constitution prohibit discrimination based on gender for receiving benefits? I know I am trying to make this too easy.

20. Justice Sotomayor was asking on behalf of the silent conservatives on the court

. . . who regularly leave their most controversial arguments to themselves, at least until they rule. I think she was soliciting a rebuttal to that argument; not expressing some belief she holds about 'experimenting for a few years.'

Agree that giving any hetero couple benefits for being married opens the door for an assumption of rights across the board for gays, lesbians and others . . . so, either include ALL couples or eliminate the benefits entirely.

There would be a bit of a problem in defining all 'benefits' afforded to married couples as attempts to preserve the institution of marriage and such. Many are things like survivor benefits and the like. But, I understand your reasoning, I think.